Chhattisgarh Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rupendra Kumar Vs. Omprakash and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988)ORDER (Oral)I. M. QUDDUSI, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (driver) against the impugned award dated 2.7.2009, passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 27/2008, awarding a total sum of Rs. 3,34,047/-, holding the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as responsible for payment of compensation, jointly and severally, exonerating the insurance company. Therefore, the appellant/driver has challenged the impugned award to the extent that the liability to pay the amount of compensation is on the insurance company because of the reason that there was no breach of the conditions of the insurance policy and the appellant/driver was having the valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident to drive the offending vehicle i.e. agricultural tractor for which a farmer's policy was issued by the insurance company.2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for t...
Chandrahas Patel and Others Vs. Masih Dan
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)1. Heard on admission.2. By this common judgment, S.A. Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 of 2011 are being disposed of as the common facts and issues are involved in all these Second Appeals.3. These appeals have been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg in Civil Appeal Nos. 11-A/10, 1-A/10, 2-A/10,3-A/10, 10-A/10 and 7- A/10 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Durg in Civil Suit Nos. 38-A/09, 37- A/09, 39-A/09, 41-A/09, 40-A/09 and 36-A/09 respectively.4. Brief facts of the case are that: admittedly, the appellants are residing in the part of suit premises as tenants of respondent/ plaintiff; the suit premises were given on rent by the plaintiff to the appellants on monthly rent of Rs. 250, 150, 250, 250, 150 and 250/- respectively; the appellants entered into agreement of sale with the responden...
Saurabh Pandey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
ORDER ORAL:(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the letter 6-12-2008 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (for short "the PSC"), by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the requisite qualification as per the advertisement.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08/05/2008 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner applied for the post of Scientific Officer (Zoology). The requisite qualification prescribed for the said post is Master of Science Degree (Second Division) in Botany/ Zoology/ Biotechnology/ Biochemistry/ Microbiology/ Anthropology/ Judicial Science (with specialization in Judicial Zoology/ Judicial Serum Science) and also two years experience in Scientific Rese...
S.G. Parulkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
ORDER ORAL:(Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 9-7-2010 (Annexure - P/1) by which the petitioner, who is working on the post of Deputy Director, Indravati Tiger Reserve, Bijapur, has been transferred to Pithora, Mahasamund.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed only to accommodate the respondent No.3. On perusal, the impugned order would show that the respondent No.3 has been transferred on his own request from Pithora, Mahsamund to Indravati Tiger Reserve, Bijapur, whereas the petitioner has been transferred on the ground of administrative exigency. Shri Sharma further submits that since 30-9-2008, this is the 3rd transfer of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner suffers from frequent transfers. The impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention only to acc...
Smt Taruni Thakur, and ors. Vs. Kamendra Singh, and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Legality and propriety of order dated 22.04.2010, passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class II, Jagdalpur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A/09 is under assailed in the instant petition. 2. The claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the petitioners/defendants. The defendant No. 2 denied the claim put-forth by the plaintiff and thus she is a contesting defendant. The petitioners were not allowed by the trial court to cross examine witnesses produced by the defendant No. 2 vide order impugned. Hence this petition. 3. Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit: contents of affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 are adverse to the interest of the petitioners, and therefore, it was necessary for the petitioners to cross examine her and the same has been illegally disallowed by the trial court. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit: there is no conflict of interest between the petitioners and respondents/...
Seth Kirodimal Dharmada Trust, and ors. Vs. Kalicharan Keshaan.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 03.08.2010, passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 29- A/2010, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected, is under assail in this revision. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are: the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit before the District Judge, Raigarh, for declaration that resolution dated 21.02.10, passed by the applicants/defendants to remove the non applicant/plaintiff from trusteeship of applicant Trust is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and the same is without jurisdiction as the resolution dated 21.08.01, whereby the applicant No. 3 & 4 were appointed as a trustee, and the resolution dated 05.11.07, whereby the applicant No. 5 was appointed as a trustee are illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and without jurisdiction. Consequential relief of injunction was also claimed. 3. The suit as per para 33 of the plaint, was valued for re...
Superintendent Engineer Mpeb, and anr. Vs. Smt Reeta Urmalia, and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 10.07.92, passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge to the court of District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 40- A/1990, whereby the suit filed by the respondents for realization of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation was decreed and a sum of Rs. 96,000/- was awarded to the respondents along with interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of suit, present appeal has been filed. 2. Brief facts in nutshell are that: a suit was filed alleging that the respondents are dependents of deceased Suryabhan, who died on 29.08.1985 at about 8:30 PM when he came in contact with live electric wires which were lying on the Mission Hospital Road, Bilaspur. It was alleged that the accident, in which the deceased Suryabhan died, occurred because the appellant failed in its duty in maintaining the electric line, hence the respondents are entitled for compensation. It was also alleged that the deceased was Pujari in Venkatesh Mandir and was earning Rs. 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›